Featured Observations from the Bourse-CAC

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Tom B, May 18, 2014.

  1. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    I am familiar with gold that has been exposed to iodine or treated with putty as well as silver proofs that have had an enhanced or artificial cameo added and a few patterns or color combinations for toning that are likely not natural. On more rare occasions, in my opinion, there are coins that have been tooled that make it into holders, but this might be due to mechanical errors instead of missing the alteration. There may be others, too, but this is what I am thinking right now. These manipulations need not be all that stable if the coin is submitted to a TPG soon after manipulation. Please keep in mind that the TPGs might let a coin or multiple coins slide through with some type of unusual or novel manipulation, but then they become well versed in spotting the issue and few, if any, additional pieces get through. They are quite alert and vigilant, but folks might try anything to get a coin through or to improve a grade or perceived value.

    The TPGs have it tough in that they have to spot all these things as well as look at authenticity, hidden problems and overall grade. The job can be very difficult for the TPGs. In this sense, CAC has it a bit easier for some coins since, for example, a previously puttied gold might have had the putty dry and "turn", which then allows CAC to spot the putty with relative ease. Some folks might state that CAC is better because they spotted the putty, for example, but there is no assurance that they would have spotted it if they had seen the coin upon submission to the TPG.

    I cannot speak for what the TPGs and CAC will accept as a manipulation other than the TPGs definitely will accept a properly dipped coin and I expect that CAC does this, too. I don't have much experience with dipped coinage since I don't dip coins and I generally avoid pieces that I think were previously dipped, which leaves me less well equipped to answer this question.
    geekpryde likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I'm familiar with the methods you mentioned, was just curious if there was something else that perhaps I was not familiar with. But more than anything, I wanted others to hear what you had to say on the subject so they might at least be aware of it.

    And no, I myself do not think that the guys at CAC are any better, but I certainly don't doubt that there are those who do think they are. Personally, as I've said before, I don't think a lot of folks understand exactly what CAC does, or why they do it.

    And back when they first announced themselves I didn't think they would be successful, I thought the business would flop because I didn't think that collectors in general would buy into or be willing to pay them to do what they do. But I was wrong about that. Rather obviously there were more out there at the time that doubted the TPGs than I thought.
  4. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    This one passed a TPG and CAC: Ugh.
    $_57 (4).JPG
  5. Pcunix

    Pcunix Active Member

    Uggh doesn't even begin to say it.

    Unless they are assuming a planchet defect? But even so, CAC shouldn't have stickered it.
  6. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    My first thought was, "And PCGS declines to slab MY coins..."
  7. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    This coin meets all of Doug's criteria.
    1. Pedigreed coin
    2. High scarcity
    3. High value
    4. Early years of the U.S. mint
  8. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    My understanding and experience verified through actual submissions I have done, is that I ALWAYS get the rejected coins for free (no fee), that is because I have "collector" membership. The dealers ALWAYS pay for rejections has far as what I have been told.

    In fact, I have a $110 credit with CAC as we speak. They did ask me if I wanted a check back or hold for future submissions. Since I wait to have 20 or 30 coins to submit, the shipping charges don't really cost anything for the rejected coins, and since I have HWI, I don't pay anything extra for insurance either. So my rejects really don't cost a thing in my mind, and my sticker rate is 75%.

    I like this "feature" of CAC submissions a lot.
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
    C-B-D likes this.
  9. carboni7e

    carboni7e aka MonsterCoinz

    Is that graffiti I see on the Columbian half. It's beautiful btw
  10. mill rat41

    mill rat41 Member

    One thing about CAC that is overlooked is that a coin they sticker is an A or B coin for the grade, AND it is a coin they are willing to buy. So, to me it seems they might not sticker a coin just because they wouldn't be willing to make an offer for it. Is this correct?
  11. Pcunix

    Pcunix Active Member

    And you wouldn't want to insult the one percenter who bought it, right ?
  12. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    Uhhhh...no graffiti.
  13. carboni7e

    carboni7e aka MonsterCoinz

    2 o'clock above the sail. It's the same mark I've seen on several coins that is sometimes designated as graffiti. Trey has an 1891 Quarter with the same mark.
  14. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Among the reasons for a no grade -

    93|N-3 Planchet Flaw - Metal impurity or defect in the planchet –
    depends on severity
  15. treylxapi47

    treylxapi47 Well-Known Member Dealer

    Thats a very similar mark for sure, and after I blew the photo up on Toms Half, it does appear to be a scratch and not a place that missed toning, almost as if you can see the fresh metal 'glowing' from the gouge. We of course do not have the coin in hand (and Tom may not either anymore), but is there any way to verify if that is in fact an anomaly we are seeing in the photos, or is that actually a scratch?

    Whats also weird is that the mark is on the same side of the coin, and in relatively the same location as where my scratch is as well.

    So what gets me, and this is assuming that the mark we are seeing in Tom's photo is in fact a scratch and not a perception through the picture, is that it is awful coincidental for a coin to experience such a random mark, in such a random place, due to 'mishandling' (this coin didnt circulate i would imagine), and not only did it receive one of those random marks, but it received another in the same location to replicate the image of an 'X', but no other marks anywhere else on his coin, and few on mine.

    Now my question is this, if my coin was deemed gradeable and my 'X' mark was due to circulation, then what would Tom's be caused by, and why would that get a slide into a problem free holder if it is a mint state coin?

    Again, this is mostly hypothetical as of right now as I am basing my assumption off the picture and what appears to be a similar mark to my 1891 quarter. Reality may reflect a different truth, but it does make for an interesting question.

    The big thing here though is whether Toms mark is a scratch, or just an anomaly that appears to be a scratch in the photograph.
  16. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    I see what you mean and, interestingly enough, I have multiple images of this coin taken through the years and do not recall this feature showing up previously. Therefore, I went to the bank this morning with a loupe and a good light to examine the coin. The marks are there, but they are extremely shallow and in-hand they do not show up together. That is, you can see both marks, but only when you rotate the coin under a light and as one line disappears the other becomes visible. They are a pair of very fine hairlines that both picked up my lights very well and show up in the image far better than they show up in reality.

    I do not think anyone would consider this to be graffiti if the coin was seen in-hand, but I admit the imaging affect is pretty dang cool they way they popped out together like that.
    geekpryde and treylxapi47 like this.
  17. carboni7e

    carboni7e aka MonsterCoinz

    Didn't mean for you to make a trip to the bank lol! I agree, it probably only showed up because your images have lighting from several sides.
  18. treylxapi47

    treylxapi47 Well-Known Member Dealer

    Unfortunately mine is NOT due to a lighting effect :(

    Also, I just cant fathom a real life situation that unintentionally puts two random marks at the same place on a coin. And this isnt just about Toms coin, but mine too.

    I mean sensible statistics should reveal that the chances of something like that happening at random are so astronomical that intent would be the only plausible conclusion. I know we all hear the mantra about circulation marks (or contact marks) being so random as to literally encompass any possible combination of outcomes, but it just blows my mind that it can happen so intentional looking, more so than at least I realized.

    Seriously though, stop and think about the coin Tom posted for a minute. That coin is just about flawless to the unaided eye, and especially so to the untrained eye. Now think about the size of the mark and the description that Tom gave of it being shallow and not visible together. Look at the picture again and look at the marks in a scaled proportion to the whole surface of that coin. A rough estimate would be that the scratch would take up say approx 1/100th of the surface area of that coin (just a rough guess). There are two sides to both of these coins (his and mine, and well all coins in general), and two marks just happened to fall randomly, at precisely perpendicular angles, suspiciously similar depths, and it WASNT intentional, that fate intervened, and those marks occurred like that through circulation or some other contact mark? I dont know, and I certainly cant speak for Tom's coin other than the picture and what he has described to us, but as for MY coin, I just cant swallow that pill. I can live with the coin, dont get me wrong, but I am not going to convince myself that the issue was some random act, when to me and my deductions, it appears to be caused by human intent on my seated quarter.

    Tom's eye is most certainly far better trained than mine when it comes to issues such as this, and I would trust his opinion on his coin and from him viewing it in hand. I just would like to hear some plausible scenarios of what could possibly cause these types of marks, other than someone sitting over the coin with a fine tipped pin, and see what you all have to say. I know the great minds here can give us a explanation on why they think these marks occurred naturally, and I am open to refining my thoughts on the matter of whether marks such as this are intentional or random, I just need to see some evidence of this actually being a random occurrence.
  19. Catbert

    Catbert Evil Cat

    Any more thoughts about Tom's CAC comments?
  20. carboni7e

    carboni7e aka MonsterCoinz

    I've never bought a slab with a green bean before. They usually go for the next grade in the price guide. I agree with what was said before - people must not understand what CAC actually does.
  21. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    That's interesting that you have been offered coins with CAC stickers at the next grade up; I have never seen that and have never done that. Of course, some of the coins on my site might be priced so out of whack with respect to the market that others might think I am attempting to gouge them, but...:oops:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page